Uttam Chakraborty vs State Of Assam

Uttam Chakraborty .....Appellant

Vs.

State of Assam ....Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 871 OF 2006

O R D E R

1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 871 and 869 of

2006.

2. The facts are as under:

The appellants, Mission Suklabaidhya and Uttam Chakraborty

were friends. Mission Suklabaidhya, who was a retired Army personnel,

was married to Gita Das deceased. The couple had a child Marjon PW-6

who was about 4 or 5 years old when the incident happened. The

deceased was also pregnant at that time and was carrying a foetus about

8 months old. As the deceased was employed as a school teacher, the

couple had engaged one Panchami Suklabaidya PW-1, aged 16 years, as

a domestic help, and she resided in the house of the couple. As per the

prosecution story, Mission Suklabaidhya and PW-1 developed an illicit

relationship and when this was discovered by the deceased, there were

frequent quarrels between the couple. As per the prosecution story, on

Crl. Appeal No.869 of 2006 2

the night intervening the 13th and 14th April 2004 at about 2.00 a.m.

Radhu Paul PW-4, a resident of Lala Town, accompanied by 4 or 5

persons went to the house of Nioti Das PW-1, the mother of the

deceased, situated at Abdullapur, and told her that her daughter had

fallen ill and asked her to accompany them to the Police Station. On

reaching the Police Station, PW-1 found Mission Suklabaidhya and

Panchami Suklabaidhya present there and learnt from them that her

daughter had died of burn injuries. She thereupon lodged a FIR at about

2.30 a.m. to the effect that she had learnt from her son-in-law and PW-1

that her daughter had died in a fire caused by kerosene oil but she

further went on to say that she had been killed by her husband. During

the course of the investigation, it transpired that accused Uttam

Chakraborty had also present when the deceased had been done to

death. The statement of PW-1 was also recorded under Section 164 of

the Cr.P.C. in which she stated that both the accused had been

responsible for the murder as the deceased was objecting to her

relationship with Mission Suklabaidhya accused.

3. On the completion of the investigation the appellants were brought

to trial on a charge of murder. The prosecution relied primarily on the

evidence of PW-6 Marjon Suklabaidhya, who was projected as an eye

witness to what had happened on the fateful day, PW-1 Panchami

Suklabaidya aforesaid, PW-2 the Executive Magistrate Manash Das, who

held an inquest on the dead body and had noticed a huge cut injury on

Crl. Appeal No.869 of 2006 3

the person of the deceased, Radhu Paul PW-4 who stated that he had

seen both the accused involved in an animated discussion in front of his

shop and when he had gone close to them they had changed the topic

and had started discussing some business matter and that after a short

while a girl had come out and raised a hue and cry and told Mission

Suklabaidhya that his wife had died of burn injuries, Nioti Rani PW-6,

the mother of the deceased, who deposed to the illicit relationship of her

son-in-law and PW-1, and PW-7 the doctor, Khairuz Zaman Choudhary,

who had carried out the post-mortem examination and had found very

severe cut injuries on the stomach which indicated that the foetus had

been removed.

4. The trial court, on a consideration of the evidence, convicted both

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and

while Mission Suklabaidhya was awarded the death penalty, Uttam

Chakraborty was ordered to undergo imprisonment for life. The matter

was thereafter referred to the High Court for the confirmation of the

death sentence in Criminal Death Reference No. 4/2005 whereas

Criminal Appeal No.212/2005 was filed by the accused. The High Court,

by the impugned judgment, confirmed the death reference and dismissed

the Criminal Appeal. While confirming reference, the Division Bench

considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and held that

the aggravating circumstances far outweighed the mitigating ones. Two

appeals have been filed in this Court, Criminal Appeal No.871/2006 by

Crl. Appeal No.869 of 2006 4

Mission Suklabaidhya and Criminal Appeal No. 869/2006 by Uttam

Chakraborty.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the record very carefully. It is true that the primary evidence

would have been that of PW-1 Panchami Suklabaidya, a girl 15 or 16

years of age, and admittedly a domestic help of Mission Suklabaidhya

and the deceased. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of the

Cr.P.C. she supported the prosecution story but while giving evidence as

PW-1 she resiled therefrom and gave a complete go by to what she had

said earlier. In the light of the fact that a statement recorded under

Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence we have to go to

the other evidence produced in Court by the prosecution. Both the trial

court and the High Court have noticed that the only other evidence

against the appellants was the statement of PW-6, a child 4 or 5 years of

age. PW-6 did support the prosecution and it is primarily his evidence

that has led to the conviction of the appellants. The courts below have

also found corroboration for the motive in the statement of PW-5 Nioti

Rani Das, the mother of the deceased, and the very material

circumstance that the murder had been committed in the matrimonial

house of the couple. We are, however, of the opinion that

notwithstanding the fact that PW-6 is a witness whose credibility has not

been doubted, it would perhaps be imprudent to award a capital

sentence on the statement of a child witness as observed in Suresh vs.

Crl. Appeal No.869 of 2006 5

State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 569. While rendering its decision, this is

what the Court had to say:

"Children, in the first place, mix up what

they see with what they like to imagine to have seen and

besides, a little tutoring is inevitable in their case in

order to lend coherence and consistency to their

disjointed thoughts which tend to stray. The extreme

sentence cannot seek its main support from evidence of

this kind which, even if true, is not safe enough to act

upon for putting out a life."

6. This judgment was followed later in Raja Ram Yadav & Ors. vs.

State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCC 287 wherein similar observations have

been made. We are, therefore, of the opinion that though the conviction

of Mission Suklabaidhya needs to be maintained, and his crime was truly

horrendous, the death sentence awarded should be commuted to life

imprisonment. We make an order in the above terms. Criminal Appeal

No. 871 of 2006 is disposed of accordingly.

7. We now take up the case of the appellant Uttam Chakraborty. We

find absolutely no evidence to connect him with the murder. PW-4

Radhu Paul did state that at about 10/10.30 p.m. on the night of the

occurrence, he had seen the two accused discussing something with

each other and while they were doing so, a girl ( that is PW-1) had come

out shouting and had told Mission Suklabaidhya that his wife had died

of burn injuries. We are unable to see how this evidence can connect the

appellant with the murder. PW-5, the mother of the deceased, has not

said a word about his involvement in the incident except that he was a

Crl. Appeal No.869 of 2006 6

neighbour of PW-1. PW-6 did identify the appellant in Court but he

apparently mistook him for Radhu Paul PW-4, as is clear from his

statement. In this view of the matter, we find that the conviction of

Uttam Chakraborty, appellant cannot be sustained. We accordingly

allow Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2006, set aside his conviction and

sentence and direct that he be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any

other case.

...............................J.

(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.........................................

J.

(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

APRIL 6, 2010

NEW DELHI.